Law Lords criticise TT Appeal Court

THE British Privy Council was highly critical of the TT Court of Appeal yesterday when it handed down judgment in favour of a Tunapuna man who was the victim of a brutal attack by the police more than 12 years ago. The Law Lords said they could not understand how Appeal Court Judge Rolston Nelson (who delivered the judgment) could have reversed the order made by the High Court Judge. Temporary Judge Douglas Mendes had ruled in favour of Mitra Harracksingh who had brought a civil suit against the Attorney General and PC Neville Adams for false imprisonment, assault and battery and malicious prosecution.

The Attorney General appealed and the TT Court of Appeal comprising Justices Nelson, Roger Hamel-Smith, and Lionel Jones, reversed Mendes’ order. Harracksingh appealed and yesterday the Privy Council, comprising Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Scott, Sir Andrew Leggatt, and Sir Kenneth Keith, restored Mendes’ judgment and ordered the Attorney General to pay costs. Dr Charles Seepersad and Mauritius attorney James Ramdhun appeared for Harracksingh, while James Dingemanns QC represented the Attorney General. Harracksingh, who lives at Back Street, Tunapuna, is to receive $88,050 in damages plus interest dating back to the filing of his writ, along with costs in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. On June 28, 1991, Harracksingh was living in a rented room at Back Street when an altercation occurred between himself and a woman. The woman called the police who responded.

Three police officers arrived, knocked and then broke down the door. Harracksingh claimed that he was dragged bare-footed down two flights of stairs and his head was banged against the back door of the police van. This made it bleed and his cervical disc was damaged. He said PC Adams drove the van very fast and slammed on the brakes with the result that his head hit the back of the seat in front and the officer with him in the back slammed his feet into his testicles. PC Adams’ story was different. He described Harracksingh as “quarrelsome, very angry and smelt of drink.” He said the police officers and Harracksingh went downstairs and it was there that the man became abusive. He was arrested for “making use of obscene language” to the annoyance of persons in the street. After hearing the witnesses, Judge Mendes ruled for Harracksingh. In the Court of Appeal, Justice Nelson declared himself “mindful that due respect must be paid to the learned judge’s findings of fact.” Justice Nelson added, “however, where, as here it is clear that he has failed to use the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, a Court of Appeal ought not to shrink from reversing his findings of fact.’

Sir Andrew Leggatt, who delivered the judgment, reminded the court that Judge Mendes reached his decision mainly on this statement: “I have absolutely no doubt that the plaintiff told the truth concerning the events of June 28, 1991. I believe him when he said that he did not use obscene language that night and I believe him when he said that he was assaulted and beaten by police officers Adams and SRP Maraj. I also believe him when he said that as a consequence of the injuries he received, he visited the Port-of-Spain General Hospital that night. I come to these conclusions on the basis of the observations which I made of the demeanour of the various witnesses when they gave evidence. In particular, I was impressed with the way the plaintiff represented himself in cross-examination.” Sir Andrew stated, “in light of that passage, it is difficult to understand what Nelson JA can have had in mind when he asserted of the judge that ‘it is clear that he failed to use the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.’”

The Privy Council Judge continued, “on the contrary, the use made by the judge of his advantage is explicit, whereas the Court of Appeal, despite their acceptance that ‘due respect must be paid to the judge’s findings of fact,’ are not seen to have accorded them any real weight.” The Law Lords said that unless the judge’s decision contained material inconsistencies and inaccuracies, the High Court decision ought not to have been disturbed. The Privy Council also found that the conduct of the police officers was not only overzealous, but tortious. “Not only was the prosecution doomed, but charging a person with an offence which the arresting officer knows he has not committed, necessarily involved a lack of honest belief on the part of the officer and his motive can only have been improper,” Sir Andrew added.